DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,625,565 (hereinafter patent’565). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims are more specific and therefore anticipate the instant claims as follows:
All limitations of instant claim 1 are described in patent’565 claim 1, the difference being that patent’565 includes mores limitations and therefore it is more specific than instant claim 1.
The dependent claims map as follows:
Instant
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
‘565
2
3
4
5
1
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain et al. in US 11,177,093 (hereinafter Jain) in view of Smith et al. in US 2021/0294430 (hereinafter Smith).
Regarding claim 1, Jain disclose an electronic device (Jain’s col. 1 lines 16-17) having a multi-function human interface (Jain’s Figs. 1-2), the electronic device comprising: a plurality of key caps (Jain’s Fig. 4A and col. 5 lines 48-62: keycaps 309), wherein the plurality of key caps comprise a first key cap (Jain’s Fig. 4A: keycap 309); a plurality of elastic units (Jain’s Fig. 4A and col. 6 lines 41-62: rubber domes 403 under keycaps 309), wherein the plurality of elastic units comprise a first elastic unit (Jain’s Fig. 4A: dome 403); a plurality of conductive materials (Jain’s Fig. 4A and col. 6 lines 41-52: electrode 202A), wherein the plurality of conductive materials comprise a first conductive material (Jain’s Fig. 4A: electrode 202A); and an electrode layer (Jain’s Fig. 4A and col. 8 lines 24-38: layer for electrodes 302B and 405) configured to generate key input signals (Jain’s col. 7 line 48 to col. 8 line 5: signal for key depression) and touch input signals (Jain’s col. 7 lines 23-48: signal for touch or proximate event); wherein the electrode layer (Jain’s Fig. 4A and col. 8 lines 24-38: layer for electrodes 302B and 405) is comprising: a first type electrode (Jain’s Fig. 4A: see 202B) configured to generate touch input signals (Jain’s col. 6 line 62 to col. 7 line 12: inputs from touch electrodes); and a second type electrode (Jain’s Fig. 4A: see 405) configured to generate at least key input signals (Jain’s col. 7 line 48 to col. 8 line 5: signal for key depression from 405); wherein … a second electrode included in the second type electrode (Jain’s Fig. 4A: see 405) are arranged to overlap with the first key cap at least partially (Jain’s Fig. 4A: see overlap of keycap 309 with electrode 405), wherein the second electrode is arranged to overlap with the first conductive material at least partially (Jain’s Fig. 4A: se overlap of 405 with 202A), wherein the first electrode is arranged not to overlap with the first conductive material (Jain’s Fig. 4A: see 202B not overlapping with 202A).
Jain fails to disclose wherein a first electrode included in the first type electrode … are arranged to overlap with the first key cap at least partially.
However, in the same field of endeavor of keyboards that also detect touch, Smith discloses an electrode layer (Smith’s Figs. 7 and par. 71: see 702, 704 and 706) comprising a first type electrode configured to generate touch input (Smith’s Figs. 7 and par. 71-76: drive/sense electrodes for gesture input) and a second type electrode configured to generate at least key input signals (Smith’s Figs. 7 and par. 73: electrodes detecting key position and movement), wherein a first electrode included in the first type electrode and a second electrode included in the second type electrode are arranged to overlap with the first key cap at least partially (Smith’s Fig. 7 and par. 71: electrodes 702, 704, 706 under keycap 708).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that Jain’s keycap (Jain’s Fig. 4A: see 309 equivalent to 708 in Smith’s Fig. 7) overlaps at least partially Jain’s first electrode included in the first type electrode (Jain’s Fig. 4A: see 202B equivalent to 702 in Smith’s Fig. 1 per par. 71) and a second electrode included in the second type electrode (Jain’s Fig. 4A: see 405 equivalent to 704 in Smith’s Fig. 1 per par. 71); in order to obtain the benefit of extra electrodes biased to ground that provide additional electrical shielding (Smith’s par. 73).
By doing such combination, Jain in view of Smith disclose:
an electronic device (Jain’s col. 1 lines 16-17) having a multi-function human interface (Jain’s Figs. 1-2), the electronic device comprising:
a plurality of key caps (Jain’s Fig. 4A and col. 5 lines 48-62: keycaps 309 inclusive of dome 403 and electrode 202A), wherein the plurality of key caps comprise a first key cap (Jain’s Fig. 4A: keycap 309);
a plurality of elastic units (Jain’s Fig. 4A and col. 6 lines 41-62: rubber domes 403 under keycaps 309), wherein the plurality of elastic units comprise a first elastic unit (Jain’s Fig. 4A: dome 403);
a plurality of conductive materials (Jain’s Fig. 4A and col. 6 lines 41-52: electrode 202A), wherein the plurality of conductive materials comprise a first conductive material (Jain’s Fig. 4A: electrode 202A); and
an electrode layer (Jain’s Fig. 4A and col. 8 lines 24-38: layer for electrodes 302B and 405; equivalent to 702, 704 and 706 of Smith’s Fig. 7 per par. 71) configured to generate key input signals (Jain’s col. 7 line 48 to col. 8 line 5: signal for key depression) and touch input signals (Jain’s col. 7 lines 23-48: signal for touch or proximate event);
wherein the electrode layer (Jain’s Fig. 4A and col. 8 lines 24-38: layer for electrodes 302B and 405; equivalent to 702, 704 and 706 of Smith’s Fig. 7 per par. 71) is comprising:
a first type electrode (Jain’s Fig. 4A: see 202B) configured to generate touch input signals (Jain’s col. 6 line 62 to col. 7 line 12: inputs from touch electrodes); and
a second type electrode (Jain’s Fig. 4A: see 405) configured to generate at least key input signals (Jain’s col. 7 line 48 to col. 8 line 5: signal for key depression from 405);
wherein a first electrode included in the first type electrode (Jain’s Fig. 4A: see 202B equivalent to 702 in Smith’s Fig. 1 per par. 71) and a second electrode included in the second type electrode (Jain’s Fig. 4A: see 405 equivalent to 704 in Smith’s Fig. 1 per par. 71) are arranged to overlap with the first key cap at least partially (Jain’s Fig. 4A: see overlap of keycap 309 with electrode 405, and upon combination 202B also overlaps 309 per Smith’s Fig. 7 and par. 71: electrodes 702, 704, 706 under keycap 708),
wherein the second electrode is arranged to overlap with the first conductive material at least partially (Jain’s Fig. 4A: se overlap of 405 with 202A),
wherein the first electrode is arranged not to overlap with the first conductive material (Jain’s Fig. 4A: see 202B not overlapping with 202A).
Regarding claim 2, Jain in view of Smith further disclose wherein the electrode layer (Jain’s Fig. 4A and col. 8 lines 24-38: layer for electrodes 302B and 405; equivalent to 702, 704 and 706 of Smith’s Fig. 7 per par. 71) comprises a first type lines consisting of electrodes electrically connected in a longitudinal direction of a keyboard layout (Smith’s Fig. 7: see lines of electrodes 702, 704 or 706 in the longitudinal direction) and a second type lines consisting of electrodes electrically connected in a width direction of the keyboard layout (Smith’s Fig. 7: see other lines of electrodes 702, 704 or 706 in the width direction), wherein the first type lines are configured to function as one of a transmitter or a receiver (Smith’s par. 71: drive electrodes), and the second type lines are configured to function as the other of the transmitter or the receiver (Smith’s par. 71: sense electrodes).
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that Jain’s Fig. 4A electrodes 302 and 405 would be an array of electrodes, with transmitter or receiver electrodes in a longitudinal direction and the other of transmitter or receiver electrodes in a width direction of the keyboard (as taught by Smith’s Fig. 7 per par. 71), in order to obtain the benefit explained for claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Jain in view of Smith disclose wherein the first conductive material (Jain’s Figs. 4: see 202A) is arranged to move in accordance with a movement of the first key cap (Jain’s Fig. 4A→Fig. 4B: see 202A moving down with movement of keycap 309 and dome 403).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, wherein the first conductive material (Jain’s Fig. 4A: electrode 202A) is formed to be included in the first key cap (Jain’s Fig. 4A and col. 6 lines 18-19, 53-61: touch electrode underneath each keycap, and keycap 309 includes dome with electrode 202A).
Regarding claim 16, Jain in view of Smith disclose wherein the first conductive material is formed to be included in the first elastic unit (Smith’s Figs. 4 and col. 8 lines 9-23: 202A attached on the bottom side of dome 403).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain in view of Smith as applied above, in further view of Weinerth et al. in US 2020/0233531 (hereinafter Weinerth).
Regarding claim 3, Jain in view of Smith fail to disclose wherein the first electrode and the second electrode are included in the first type lines.
However, in the related field of endeavor of transcapacitive touch panels, Weinerth discloses the first electrode (Weinerth’s Fig. 2A and par. 53: see transmitter Y5 for coupling 295 equivalent to 202B in Jain’s Fig. 4A) and the second electrode (Weinerth’s Fig. 2A and par. 53: see receiver Y4 for coupling 295 equivalent to 405 in Jain’s Fig. 4A) are included in the first type lines (Weinerth’s Fig. 2A and par. 52-53: see Y electrodes all in the same direction equivalent to lines of 702/704 or 706 in the longitudinal in Smith’s Fig. 7).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that Jain’s first electrode and second electrode (Jain’s Fig. 4A: see 202B and 405) are included in the first type lines (Weinerth’s Fig. 2A: lines Y which are equivalent to longitudinal 702/704/706 in Smith’s Fig. 7), in order to obtain the benefit of allowing different transcapacitance sensing with the same array of electrodes (Weinerth’s Fig. 2A and par. 53).
Regarding claim 4, Jain in view of Smith fail to disclose wherein the first electrode and the second electrode are included in the second type lines.
However, in the related field of endeavor of transcapacitive touch panels, Weinerth discloses the first electrode (Weinerth’s Fig. 2A and par. 53: see transmitter Y5 for coupling 295 equivalent to 202B in Jain’s Fig. 4A) and the second electrode (Weinerth’s Fig. 2A and par. 53: see receiver Y4 for coupling 295 equivalent to 405 in Jain’s Fig. 4A) are included in the second type lines (Weinerth’s Fig. 2A and par. 52-53: see Y electrodes all in the same direction equivalent to lines of 702/704 or 706 in the width direction in Smith’s Fig. 7).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that Jain’s first electrode and second electrode (Jain’s Fig. 4A: see 202B and 405) are included in the second type lines (Weinerth’s Fig. 2A: lines Y which are equivalent to width direction 702/704/706 in Smith’s Fig. 7), in order to obtain the benefit of allowing different transcapacitance sensing with the same array of electrodes (Weinerth’s Fig. 2A and par. 53).
Regarding claim 5, Jain in view of Smith fail to disclose wherein the first electrode is included in either the first type lines or the second type lines, wherein the second electrode is included in the other of the first type lines or the second type lines.
However, in the related field of endeavor of transcapacitive touch panels, Weinerth discloses the first electrode (Weinerth’s Fig. 2A and par. 53: see transmitter Y5 for coupling 290 equivalent to 202B in Jain’s Fig. 4A) is included in either the first type lines or the second type lines (Weinerth’s Fig. 2A and par. 52-53: see Y electrodes all in the same direction equivalent to lines of 702/704 or 706 in the longitudinal direction in Smith’s Fig. 7), wherein the second electrode (Weinerth’s Fig. 2A and par. 53: see receiver X4 for coupling 290 equivalent to 405 in Jain’s Fig. 4A) is included in the other of the first type lines or the second type lines (Weinerth’s Fig. 2A and par. 52-53: see X electrodes all in the same direction equivalent to lines of 702/704 or 706 in the width direction in Smith’s Fig. 7).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that Jain’s first electrode (Jain’s Fig. 4A: see 202B) is included in the first type line (Weinerth’s Fig. 2A: lines Y which are equivalent to longitudinal direction 702/704/706 in Smith’s Fig. 7) and the second electrode (Jain’s Fig. 4A: see 405) is included in the second type lines (Weinerth’s Fig. 2A: lines X which are equivalent to width direction 702/704/706 in Smith’s Fig. 7), in order to obtain the benefit of allowing different transcapacitance sensing with the same array of electrodes (Weinerth’s Fig. 2A and par. 53).
Claim 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain in view of Smith as applied above, in further view of Shepelev et al. in US 2015/0091842 (hereinafter Shepelev).
Jain in view of Smith fail to disclose wherein the second type electrode comprises a protrusion.
However, in the related field of endeavor of touch sensing, Shepelev discloses electrodes with protrusions (Shepelev’s Figs. 12D-12E and par. 135).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that Jain in view of Smith’s second type electrode (Jain’s Fig. 4A: see 405) comprises a protrusion (Shepelev’s Figs. 12D-12E and par. 135);
In order to obtain the benefit of interleaving adjacent electrodes (Shepelev’s par. 135).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 and 9-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, the prior art fails to disclose ALL limitations of claim 1, in addition to “wherein the electrode layer further includes a third electrode included in the first type electrode and a fourth electrode included in the second type electrode, wherein the third electrode and the fourth electrode are arranged to overlap with the first key cap at least partially, wherein the fourth electrode is arranged to overlap with the first conductive material at least partially, wherein the third electrode is arranged not to overlap with the first conductive material at least partially”.
Dependent claims 7 and 9-12 are indicated as allowable for at least the same reason.
The closest prior art to Jain does disclose a third electrode (Jain’s Fig. 4C: see left and right 202B), but it does not overlap with the first key cap, Jain does not disclose a fourth electrode.
Smith discloses two electrodes overlapping with the first conductive material (Smith’s Figs. 5: see 530 and 526), but the electrode generating the key signal is the sense electrode 528 which is the same sense electrode detecting transcapacitance (Smith’s par. 56), and therefore Smith fails to meet the requirements of claim 1 of the second type electrode generating at least key input signal, nor the first electrode not overlapping with the first conductive material.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CN-104898852-B (Fig. 10) directed to a keycap with a key button and touch electrodes under the keycap.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Liliana Cerullo whose telephone number is (571)270-5882. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM to 3PM MT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amr Awad can be reached at 571-272-7764. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LILIANA CERULLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights